III

Theusual appraisal of the struggle we are describing is that it is anarchism,
Blanquism, the old terrorism, the acts of individuals isolated from the masses,
which demoralise the workers, repel wide strata of the population, disorganise
the movement and injure the revolution. Examples in support of this
appraisal can easily be found in the events reported every day in the
newspapers.

Butare such examples convincing? In order to test this, let us take a locality
where the form of struggle we are examining is most developed—the
Lettish Territory. This is the way Novoye Vremya (in its issues of
September 9 and 12) complains of the activities of the Lettish
Social-Democrats. The Lettish Social-Democratic Labour Party (a section of the
Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party) regularly issues its paper in 30,000
copies. The announcement columns publish lists of spies whom it is the duty of
every decent person to exterminate. People who assist the police are proclaimed
“enemies of the revolution”, liable to execution and, moreover, to
confiscation of property. The public is instructed to give money to the
Social-Democratic Party only against signed and stamped receipt. In the Party’s
latest report, showing a total income of 48,000 rubles for the year, there
figures a sum of 5,600 rubles contributed by the Libau branch for arms which was
obtained by expropriation. Naturally, Novoye Vremya rages and fumes
against this “revolutionary law”, against this “terror
government”.

Nobodywill be so bold as to call these activities of the Lettish
Social-Democrats anarchism, Blanquism or terrorism. But why? Because here we
have a clear connection between the new form of struggle and the
uprising which broke out in December and which is again brewing. This connection
is not so perceptible in the case of Russia as a whole, but it exists. The fact
that “guerrilla” warfare became wide spread precisely after
December, and its connection with the accentuation not only of the economic
crisis but also of the political crisis is beyond dispute. The old Russian
terrorism was an affair of the intellectual conspirator; today as a general rule
guerrilla warfare is waged by the worker combatant, or simply by the unemployed
worker. Blanquism and anarchism easily occur to the minds of people who have a
weakness for stereotype; but under the circumstances of an uprising, which are
so apparent in the Lettish Territory, the inappropriateness of such trite labels
is only too obvious.

Theexample of the Letts clearly demonstrates how incorrect, unscientific and
unhistorical is the practice so very
common among us of analysing guerrilla warfare without reference to the
circumstances of an uprising. These circumstances must be borne in mind,
we must reflect on the peculiar features of an intermediate period
between big acts of insurrection, we must realise what forms of struggle
inevitably arise under such circumstances, and not try to shirk the issue
by a collection of words learned by rote, such as are used equally by the
Cadets and the Novoye Vremya-ites:
anarchism, robbery, hooliganism!

Itis said that guerrilla acts disorganise our work. Let us apply this argument
to the situation that has existed since December 1905, to the period of
Black-Hundred pogroms and martial law. What disorganises the movement more in
such a period: the absence of resistance or organised guerrilla
warfare? Compare the centre of Russia with her western borders, with Poland and
the Lettish Territory. It is unquestionable that guerrilla warfare is far more
widespread and far more developed in the western border regions. And it is
equally unquestionable that the revolutionary movement in general, and the
Social-Democratic movement in particular, are more disorganised in
central Russia than in the western border regions. Of course, it would not enter
our heads to conclude from this that the Polish and Lettish Social-Democratic
movements are less disorganised thanks to guerrilla warfare. No. The
only conclusion that can be drawn is that guerrilla warfare is not to blame for
the state of disorganisation of the Social-Democratic working-class movement
in Russia in 1906.

Allusionis often made in this respect to the peculiarities of national
conditions. But this allusion very clearly betrays the weakness of the current
argument. If it is a matter of national conditions then it is not a matter of
anarchism, Blanquism or terrorism—sins that are common to Russia as a
whole and even to the Russians especially—but of something else. Analyse
this something else concretely, gentle men! You will then find that
national oppression or antagonism explain nothing, because they have always
existed in the western border regions, whereas guerrilla warfare has been
engendered only by the present historical period. There are many places where
there is national oppression and antagonism, but no guerrilla struggle, which
sometimes develops
where there is no national oppression whatever. A concrete analysis of the
question will show that it is not a matter of national oppression, but of
conditions of insurrection. Guerrilla warfare is an inevitable form of struggle
at a time when the mass movement has actually reached the point of an uprising
and when fairly large intervals occur between the “big engagements”
in the civil war.

Itis not guerrilla actions which disorganise the movement, but the weakness of
a party which is incapable of taking such actions under its control.
That is why the anathemas which we Russians usually hurl against guerrilla
actions go hand in hand with secret, casual, unorganised guerrilla actions which
really do disorganise the Party. Being in capable of understanding what
historical conditions give rise to this struggle, we are incapable of
neutralising its deleterious aspects. Yet the struggle is going on. It is
engendered by powerful economic and political causes. It is not in our power to
eliminate these causes or to eliminate this struggle. Our complaints against
guerrilla warfare are complaints against our Party weakness in the matter of an
uprising.

Whatwe have said about disorganisation also applies to demoralisation. It is
not guerrilla warfare which demoralises, but unorganised, irregular,
non-party guerrilla acts. We shall not rid ourselves one least bit of this
most unquestionable demoralisation by condemning and cursing guerrilla
actions, for condemnation and curses are absolutely incapable of putting a stop
to a phenomenon which has been engendered by profound economic and political
causes. It may be objected that if we are incapable of putting a stop to an
abnormal and demoralising phenomenon, this is no reason why the Party
should adopt abnormal and demoralising methods of struggle. But such an
objection would be a purely bourgeois-liberal and not a Marxist objection,
because a Marxist cannot regard civil war, or guerrilla warfare, which is one of
its forms, as abnormal and demoralising in general. A Marxist bases
himself on the class struggle, and not social peace. In certain periods of acute
economic and political crises the class struggle ripens into a direct civil
war, i.e., into an armed struggle between two sections of the people. In such
periods a Marxist is obliged to take the stand of
civil war. Any moral condemnation of civil war would be
absolutely impermissible from the standpoint of Marxism.

Ina period of civil war the ideal party of the proletariat is a fighting
party. This is absolutely incontrovertible. We are quite prepared to grant
that it is possible to argue and prove the inexpediency from the
standpoint of civil war of particular forms of civil war at any particular
moment. We fully admit criticism of diverse forms of civil war from the
standpoint of military expediency and absolutely agree that in
this question it is the Social-Democratic practical workers in each
particular locality who must have the final say. But we absolutely demand in the
name of the principles of Marxism that an analysis of the conditions of civil
war should not be evaded by hackneyed and stereo typed talk about anarchism,
Blanquism and terrorism, and that senseless methods of guerrilla activity
adopted by some organisation or other of the Polish Socialist Party at some
moment or other should not be used as a bogey when discussing the question of
the participation of the Social-Democratic Party as such in guerrilla warfare in
general.

Theargument that guerrilla warfare disorganises the movement must be regarded
critically. Every new form of struggle, accompanied as it is by new
dangers and new sacrifices, inevitably “disorganises” organisations
which are unprepared for this new form of struggle. Our old propagandist circles
were disorganised by recourse to methods of agitation. Our committees were
subsequently disorganised by recourse to demonstrations. Every military action
in any war to a certain extent disorganises the ranks of the fighters. But this
does not mean that one must not fight. It means that one must learn to
fight. That is all.

WhenI see Social-Democrats proudly and smugly declaring “we are not
anarchists, thieves, robbers, we are superior to all this, we reject guerrilla
warfare”,—I ask myself:
Do these people realise what they are saying? Armed clashes and conflicts
between the Black-Hundred government and the population are taking place all
over the country. This is an absolutely inevitable phenomenon at the present
stage of development of the revolution. The population is spontaneously
and in an unorganised way—and for that very reason often in
unfortunate and undesirable forms—reacting to this phenomenon
also by armed conflicts and attacks. I can under stand us refraining from Party
leadership of this spontaneous struggle in a particular place or at a
particular time because of the weakness and unpreparedness of our organisation.
I realise that this question must be settled by the local practical workers, and
that the remoulding of weak and unprepared organisations is no easy matter. But
when I see a Social-Democratic theoretician or publicist not displaying regret
over this unpreparedness, but rather a proud smugness and a self-exalted
tendency to repeat phrases learned by rote in early youth about anarchism,
Blanquism and terrorism, I am hurt by this degradation of the most revolutionary
doctrine in the world.

Itis said that guerrilla warfare brings the class-conscious proletarians into
close association with degraded, drunken riff-raff. That is true. But it only
means that the party of the proletariat can never regard guerrilla warfare as
the only, or even as the chief, method of struggle; it means that this method
must be subordinated to other methods, that it must be commensurate with the
chief methods of warfare, and must be ennobled by the enlightening and
organising influence of socialism. And without this latter condition,
all, positively all, methods of struggle in bourgeois society bring the
proletariat into close association with the various non-proletarian strata above
and below it and, if left to the spontaneous course of events, become frayed,
corrupted and prostituted. Strikes, if left to the spontaneous course of events,
become corrupted into “alliances”—agreements between the workers
and the masters against the consumers. Parliament becomes corrupted
into a brothel, where a gang of bourgeois politicians barter wholesale and
retail “national freedom”, “liberalism”,
“democracy”, republicanism, anti-clericalism, socialism and all
other wares in demand. A newspaper becomes corrupted into a public pimp, into a
means of corrupting the masses, of pandering to the low instincts of the mob,
and so on and so forth. Social-Democracy knows of no universal methods of
struggle, such as would shut off the proletariat by a Chinese wall from the
strata standing slightly above or slightly below it. At different
periods Social-Democracy applies different methods, always qualifying
the choice of them by strictly defined ideological and
organisational
conditions.[1]

Notes

[1]
The Bolshevik Social-Democrats are often accused of a frivolous passion
for guerrilla actions. It would therefore not be amiss to recall that in
the draft resolution on guerrilla actions (Partiiniye Izvestia,
No. 2, and Lenin’s report on the Congress), the section of the
Bolsheviks who defend guerrilla actions suggested the following conditions
for their recognition: “expropriations” of private property were not to
he permitted under any circumstances; “expropriations” of government
property were not to he recommended hut only allowed, provided
that they were controlled by the Party and their proceeds used
for the needs of an uprising. Guerrilla acts in the form of
terrorism were to he recommended against brutal government
officials and active members of the Black Hundreds, hut on
condition that 1) the sentiments of the masses he taken into account; 2)
the conditions of the working-class movement in the given locality he
reckoned with, and 3) care be taken that the forces of the proletariat
should not be frittered away. The practical difference between this draft
and the resolution which was adopted at the Unity Congress lies
exclusively in the fact that “expropriations” of government
property are not allowed.—Lenin